Search results

This study examined effectiveness of an integrated care program on emergency department visits within a longitudinal sample of patients with both primary care and behavioral health diagnoses.

Patients with co-occurring disorders enrolled in an integrated care clinic and were followed over time to determine whether participation in the clinic, including engagement in wellness/peer services, predicted decreases in Emergency Department (ED) use. Associations between socio-demographic characteristics of patients and ED use were also analyzed.

After 6 months, clinic patients had decreases in ED use that continued for twelve months, albeit to a lesser degree. Demographics and program services were not related to ED use; however, multiple associations existed between high ED utilizers, severe mental illness (SMI), substance use disorders (SUD) and non-retention in services.

The study lacked a comparison group and there was no distinction between avoidable and unavoidable ED visits. A small sample size across time points led to inconclusive post hoc findings.

This study explored effectiveness of primary care integration into a behavioral health clinic for persons with multiple morbidities. Although initial decreases in ED visits were present, results indicate that these models may not be effective for persons with SMI or SMI/SUD who are already high ED users. This study provides support for integrated care in reducing ED use among persons with multiple morbidities and calls for further research on designing effective integrated models for persons with SMI and SUD.

The purpose of the article is to contribute to the debate on organizational adaptation by providing both scholars and practitioners with reasoned observations as to where this research domain is and, perhaps, could be going, and as to what important questions and gaps still exist in this research area.

The article tries to inform the conversation through updating the lenses of the “determinism versus voluntarism” approach seminally used by Astley and Ven de Ven for commenting on the state of the art in the 1980s. In particular, the article aims at enhancing the debate through a timely critical discussion of the extant literature, whose comparative analysis starts from the 1960s.

The analysis mainly indicates that, since Astley and Van de Ven's milestone, the dichotomy between determinism and voluntarism has been reduced, although it still exists. The co‐evolutionary approach can constitute a promising tool for the further reducing of the dichotomy, but more research seems to be needed to improve its utility.

The key contribution of this article is that it tries to shed light on how and why the discussed schools of thought have been theoretically and empirically evolving, what issues they have mainly addressed and if some visible or invisible colleges can be found among them. Moreover, the article analyses what scholarly positions still remain dichotomous to date and what positions scholars have reconciled, either totally or partially. Finally, it also proposes some possible avenues for further investigations within this research domain.

“We live at a hinge time in history, a threshold time when societies and cultures are being recomposed. We are learning that the way life used to work—or the way we thought it should— doesn’t work any longer” (Parks, 2009, p. xv). This article is about learning, culture change, practice and leadership. Many wise minds have articulated the leadership mindset we need for the future, and what remains stubbornly elusive is how we get there. We believe the difficult challenge of developing a new mindset--a new view of the world--to address the complexity and dynamic nature of the 21^st century is of central importance to leadership education today. As Einstein famously conveyed, we cannot address the problems of today with the same mindset that created those problems. Our inquiry explores the following questions: “How do we develop the skills, capacities and consciousness necessary for bringing creativity, innovation and a new mindset to our most strategic and pressing organizational challenges? How do we practice our way into a new paradigm of leadership?” We invite you to join us in this inquiry into leadership